We’re hearing grumblings that Muslim Ban the #TotalFail 2.0 will be rolled out this week, but what has slid under the radar is the fact that the Drumpf Administration has already begun implementing their Deportation Force bodily arresting 680 people since this past Wednesday including DACA Dreamers who Trump had promised he would “treat very humanely.” Yeah, not so much.
Late last week, immigration agents in Seattle arrested a 23-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant named Daniel Ramírez Medina—the first time, according to Reuters, a "Dreamer" was apprehended since President Donald Trump entered the White House. Ramírez was brought to the United States by his parents when he was a child, and in 2014 he became one of the 750,000 immigrants to be shielded from deportation by President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
How Trump plans to handle so-called DACAmented people has caused considerable anxiety in immigrant communities. Reports about Ramírez's apprehension confirm what many advocates have been saying: Despite assurances from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that its high-profile deportation raids last week focused on serious criminals, agents also inquired about the immigration status of other people in the general vicinity—and detained those who were undocumented.
According to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, 680 immigrants were arrested last week in what he called "a series of targeted enforcement operations" spread out over 12 states. Kelly echoed ICE's claims that these deportation actions were no different from those the agency has carried out for years, and he noted that roughly 75 percent of those arrested "were criminal aliens." But the unusually public and coordinated nature of ICE's enforcement surge—"not entirely a coincidence," according to an agency spokeswoman—has led to widespread misinformation about what immigration officials are doing.
According to reports some of those detained by ICE who were also members of DACA had committed “crimes” such as minor traffic violations or marijuana use. Not exactly the acts of major crime bosses, particularly since DACA required background checks and a clean criminal record, meaning these infractions are all fairly recent.
As noted here by Rachel Maddow there is a resistance building to these roundups.
Rawstory reports how Trump intends to massively expand the scope of those ICE will be targeting.
The Trump administration plans to direct immigration agents to greatly expand the categories of immigrants they target for deportation, according to drafts of two memos seen by Reuters and first reported by McClatchy news organization on Saturday.
Two sources familiar with the plans told Reuters the documents have been approved by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, but are under final review by the White House. They are expected to be released to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) early next week.
Under the orders, hundreds of thousands of people would face expedited removal proceedings, including those that had not been prioritized for deportation under former President Barack Obama.
The memos are guidance to instruct agents in the field to implement two executive orders signed by Trump on Jan. 25 intended to deter future migration and drive out more illegal migrants from the United States.
One memo instructs ICE agents to ignore Obama’s memos on immigration priorities that targeted only recent arrivals and convicted criminal migrants for deportation. Instead, migrants who have been charged with crimes but not convicted would be prioritized for deportation. The guidance also allows ICE agents wide discretion in deciding who to deport and considers anyone in the United States illegally to be subject to deportation.
Under Obama more people were deported than any other previous President, but his Administration put a higher priority of violent criminals or persons who had only recently arrived, did not have family in the U.S. and had not put down significant roots. Apparently none of that matters to Trump, it doesn’t matter whether they’ve actually been convicted of a crime rather than just accused — which presents a clear due process issue — and although his executive order does supposed exclude members of the DACA program, in actual practice as shown above that doesn’t seem to be the case.
In fact Ramirez wasn’t even their target.
In Ramírez's case, Reuters reported, it was his father who was originally targeted by ICE. When agents entered his father's house on Friday morning, they asked Ramírez about his immigration status. Even after he told them about his work permit under DACA—which was renewed in 2016—they brought him to a detention center in Tacoma. (An ICE spokeswoman said in a statement that Ramírez was a "self-admitted gang member," a claim that his lawyers say he denies.)
In a Washington Post story from last weekend, an unidentified immigration official explained the raids this way: "Big cities tend to have a lot of illegal immigrants. They're going to a target-rich environment." "What also may be true," says ACLU senior staff attorney Andre Segura, "is that ICE could be retaliating against cities that have more welcoming policies, just based on where they're doing it so far. But it's difficult to tell how this will play out."
There is also the possibility that the “expedited deportation” for minor crime that hasn’t been proven may be illegal. Current law requires those tagged for illegal entry and deportation to go through a hearing process before an immigration judge. Except for those caught in the process of crossing the border, as I’ve previously written, the only other process of immediate removal requires by law that the person in question has committed an “aggravated felony.”
As initially enacted in 1988, the term “aggravated felony” referred only to murder, federal drug trafficking, and illicit trafficking of certain firearms and destructive devices. Congress has since expanded the definition of “aggravated felony” on numerous occasions, but has never removed a crime from the list. Today, the definition of “aggravated felony” covers more than thirty types of offenses, including simple battery, theft, filing a false tax return, and failing to appear in court. Even offenses that sound serious, such as “sexual abuse of a minor,” can encompass conduct that some states classify as misdemeanors or do not criminalize at all, such as consensual intercourse between a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old.
Following the Oklahoma City Bombing the definition of “aggravated felony” was greatly expanded by the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton.
This is the current list.
- murder
- rape
- sexual abuse of a minor (which can include statutory rape)
- drug trafficking
- trafficking in firearms or destructive devices
- various other offenses concerning firearms or explosive materials
- racketeering
- money laundering of more than $10,000
- fraud or tax evasion involving more than $10,000
- theft or violent crime with a sentence order of at least one year
- perjury with a sentence of at least one year
- kidnapping
- child pornography
- trafficking in persons or running a prostitution business
- spying, treason, or sabotage
- commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles
- failure to appear in court on a felony charge for which a sentence of two years in prison may be imposed
- alien smuggling, and
- obstruction of justice, perjury, or bribery of a witness, if the term of imprisonment was at least one year.
Since then Federal Courts have upheld that even minor crimes can be considered “aggravated felonies”.
- In 2001, a federal appeals court agreed with DHS that due to a conviction for a misdemeanor shoplifting crime, Alexander Christopher met the legal definition of an aggravated felon. The court ruled that the fact that his sentence was suspended was "irrelevant" but noted that Congress, in expanding the reach of aggravated felony provisions of the law, was "breaking the time-honored line between felonies and misdemeanors."
- In 1999, a federal court upheld an aggravated felony designation for Winston Graham for the misdemeanor crime of petty larceny. The panel of judges said its hands were tied under the federal statute, calling it a "carelessly-drafted piece of legislation."
So it may be possible to use expedited deportation on someone convicted of a crime as minor as shoplifting, but is it legal if they haven’t been convicted yet?
Trump seems to be leaving this determination up to DHS, which they seem to be making on the fly and in inconsistent ways from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Just like the legal challenge that shutdown their ill-concieved and horribly implemented Muslim Travel Ban, these policies are likely to face significant legal challenge also.
Based on drafts of proposed policy guidelines from Secretary Kelly of DHS the ACLU seems to think so.
Seeking to fulfill Trump's campaign promise to build a wall along the Mexican border, Kelly also calls on Customs and Border Protection to "immediately begin planning, design, construction and maintenance of a wall, including the attendant lighting, technology (including sensors), as well as patrol and access roads." He describes the wall as necessary to deter illegal immigration and calls it a "critical component" of Trump's overall border security strategy.
He says the department will also prioritize for more immediate removal those who have been convicted of a crime; charged with a crime; committed fraud in connection with a matter before a government agency; abused any program related to public benefits; or have not complied with orders to leave the country.
Joanne Lin, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, criticized the proposed guidelines as a Trump style of immigration enforcement in which "due process, human decency and common sense are treated as inconvenient obstacles on the path to mass deportation."
"The Trump administration is intent on inflicting cruelty on millions of immigrant families across the country," she said in a statement.
Outside of those in DACA “showing great heart” doesn’t really seem to be in the mix.